Chennai Court July 1906 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Peria Kovil Kalavi Appan Sadagopa Rananuja Periya Jeeyangar by His Aut ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ393
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Judges of the Bombay High Court in the Bombay cases mentioned in the order of reference. We are of opinion that when a second appeal is preferred and an order is made the Court to which the appeal is preferred which has the effect of finally disposing of the appeal, time runs from the date of that order and not from the date of the decree against which the appeal has been preferred.2. Our answer to the question referred to us therefore is that the application for execution was not time-barred....
Narayanasami Padayachi Vs. Govindasami Padayachi
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-17-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ505
1. We are of opinion that Muthuvaiyan v. Sinna Samavaiyan I.L.R. M. 526 was rightly decided. In the earliar case Naniyana Chettiar v. Ghokkappa Mudaliar I.L.R. M. 655, the attention of the Court was not called to Mussumat Bahuns Kowur v. Lalla Buhooree Lall 14 M.I.A. 496, We think Narayana Chettiar v. Chokkappa Mudaliar I.L.R. 25 M. 655 must be overruled.2. Our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative....
Neelamega Sastri Vs. S. Appiah Sastri
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-16-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ385
1. We are of opinion that the test to be applied in cases of this class is correctly laid down in Panchena Manchu Nayar v. Gadinhare Kumaranchath Padmanabhan Nayar I.L.R(1896) M. 63, viz., 'to constitute an association within the meaning of the section, the existence of a legal relation between more than twenty persons giving rise to joint rights or obligations or mutual rights and duties is absolutely necessary.'2. Applying this test to the instalment in question in the present case we are of opinion that the parties to the instrument are not an association within the meaning of Section 4 of the Indian Companies Act, 1882. The organisers of the chit fund in question are described in the instrument as agents, but the terms of the instrument taken as a whole show beyond doubt that they really occupy the position of principals or proprietors.3. The answer to the question referred to us must be in the negative....
Joti Kuruvetappa and 5 ors. Vs. Sri Devandra Kirti Buttarakappatrachar ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jul-12-1906
Reported in: (1906)16MLJ354
1. The plaintiff is the head of a Matt in the Bellary District. A predecessor of his brought O.S. 17 of 1880 in the Sub-Judge's Court of the district against the principal members of the family of defendants Nos. 1 to 5 on certain bonds for money said to have been executed by Santhappa (the father of the 1st defendant) and Basalingappa (the father of the 3rd defendant) as managers the family. The claim of the plaintiff was adjusted by a compromise entered into between him and the defendants in the suit except the then 2nd defendant. By that compromise it was agreed that the plaintiff was to receive Rs. 7,828-4-0 and costs Rs. 1,685-13-6 in eleven equal instalments and the amount was made a charge on certain immoveable property of the defendants with interest at 12 per cent, in default of regular payment. The compromise was communicated to the court which recorded it and passed a decree in accordance therewith in 1883. The decree was assumed to contain an order for sale of the property ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›